Surya Prakash
How can India, which has secularism embedded in the preamble of its constitution and which has no state religion, and which elects its head of state in the best traditions of egalitarianism lag behind hereditary monarchies wedded to churches and gender inequality? Further, how can theocracies and religion-based states which cannot even be classified as democracies, have press freedom better than a secular democracy like India? These are questions that first come to mind when one looks at the RSF’s laboured effort at producing a Press Freedom Index.
The RSF Website claims that press freedom in countries is judged under six categories On the touchstone of pluralism, it measures the degree to which opinions are represented in the media. If that be so, RSF wants us to believe that there is greater pluralism in media in theocracies and Islamic states and states where even citizenship is denied to non-Muslims than in India, the most pluralistic society in the world!
The second touchstone is media independence – to measure the degree to which media is able to function independent of politics, Government, religious power and influence. And, if we go by the RSF Index, “religious power and influence” on the media in Argentina, Malta, Denmark etc where the State is wedded to the Church and in Maldives, the Sultanate of Oman, Comoros etc where the State is wedded to Islam, is far less than in secular, democratic India!
The third criterion is “media environment and self-censorship”. Liberal India has been witnessing a media boom over the last few decades, so much so, that the total print order of publications in the country has crossed 430 million copies in dozens of languages and the nation boasts of over 800 television channels of which a quarter deal with news and current affairs. The respondents are expected to analyse the environment in which journalists work. Can there be another nation which boasts of such media diversity? Also, when it comes to self-censorship, I hope RSF is aware of the consequences of non-compliance with self-censorship in Islamic States and theocracies. I hope it also has some idea of self-censorship that is de rigueur in the U.K vis-à-vis the Queen and in nations like Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark etc regarding their royalty. Self-censorship is anathema to a diverse, vibrant democracy like India.
As regards the “legislative framework” that governs media, starting with the Indian Constitution and a plethora of laws made by parliament, the media is provided with adequate insulation to enable it to work freely and fearlessly.
“Transparency” is another criteria on which India scores high. There is a great deal of divergence of political opinion in the editorial positions taken by Indian media houses, just as in the USA and other democracies and no media house ever hides its stripes. One can see all the colours of the rainbow in the media bouquet including those committed to communism, socialism, centrism, the right wing etc. Also, to those who complain of lack of transparency, one must say that the boot is on the other leg. The media was non-transparent in the past because of its excessive left-wing lilt. This stands corrected now because all shades of opinion find their place. In fact, it is this plurality which ensures free flow of information and opinion and it must be said without fear of contradiction that this kind of plurality is simply not available elsewhere. This can also be seen on the social media as well, where there is a virtual free-for-all with the worst abuses hurled at political leaders including with the Prime Minister. If you are looking for “transparency”, you will get it in abundance on these platforms, but if you are looking for decency, this is not the place to go!
Finally, the index examined the quality of infrastructure that supports the production of news and information. India is technologically advanced and offers state-of-the-art infrastructure for those who want it. Also, because of its leadership in Information Technology, Indian media companies are building robust social media platforms to take their businesses to new platforms.
Apart from all this, the methodology adopted by RSF is highly questionable. It must name its correspondents in each nation; provide the list of respondents along with their social, political, economic background, place of residence etc. Unless the sample is credible, the inferences will be suspect. There are other drawbacks: The core team based in Paris determines the questions and the weightage given to each answer – not a satisfactory situation; RSF does not explain the definition of press freedom. Instead uses terms like press freedom, freedom of information etc loosely; and finally, the questionnaire is so long and exhaustive, that it would leave most respondents exhausted even before the process is over.
Looking at this Index and the manner in which it has been worked out, it must be said that the biggest flaw is the RSF’s complete disrespect for the foundational principles of democracy. It seems to delude itself into believing that press freedom can exist in wholly non-democratic environments. For this reason alone, its conclusions must be rejected lock, stock and barrel.
Finally, it must be said that the work of RSF is subjective, biased and non-transparent. But its biggest flaw is the complete disrespect it has for the foundational principles of democracy. It deludes itself into believing that press freedom can exist in wholly non-democratic environments. That is why its conclusions must be challenged. RSF must read the Constitution of India and compare it with other constitutions. It must look at the robust institutions that propel democratic traditions in India and first define democracy itself, before venturing into the preparation of a global index. In other words, it must go back to the drawing board.
(Concluded)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel